STATEMENT OF COL. JAY COOKE, PRESIDENT, THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR MILITARY TRAINING OF YOUNG MEN, INC.

Colonel CoOKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my organization, which is the Citizens Committee for Military Training for Young Men, Inc., is composed of volunteer women and men and today is represented in 42 of the 48 States of the Union and the District of Columbia.

We are civilians, very deeply interested in the future security of our country, and believing very deeply that our preparedness will discourage potential aggressor nations and will also help to maintain world peace.

I do not pretend that I am an expert in military science-I am just a doughboy-but combat experience in two wars has instilled in me the abiding belief that training saves lives, and that a soldier or a sailor cannot be given the thorough grounding to which he is entitled before fighting in a brief space of time.

In 1918 my division went overseas with 40 percent of its personnel 2 weeks from civilian life, and we jumped off in the Argonne offensive with doughboys who had never fired their rifles.

In 1941 my division entered Federal service in January. We will never forget the Carolina maneuvers that summer-trucks with signs on them reading "tank" and "antitank gun", and makeshift equipment of all kinds. It is true that when the American Army finally entered combat it had the tanks and antitank guns--and knew how to use them-but there were many weary months of waiting and training after Pearl Harbor before we were ready.

If there is a next time-and I pray there will not-this country might be attacked first and not be given the opportunity to get ready. If we have a great reservoir of trained manpower, such an attack is far less likely.

And, believe me, I should have preferred a year's training when a young man than 6 years' service in the Army during two emergencies. I am convinced that servicemen who have been in combat agree with me 5 to 1, and are in favor of military training for all young men.

Of course, no one can guarantee that millions of trained men ready on call to defend their country will positively prevent war, but one thing is certain: few people rush up to Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey and slap them in the face.

I have listened to the various arguments used against universal military training, and, so far, I have not heard one which appears sensible to me. Undoubtedly some of the opposition is founded on sincerity, but I have yet to hear a suggested substitute plan which makes for national security-except to maintain a large and expensive Regular Army and Navy-and it is national security which must be the predominant desire of every real American and which must also be the deciding factor in deciding whether or not we are to have universal military training.

For the sake of generations of Americans yet unborn, let us not procrastinate and quibble. Let's act now, while we have men who know the score and while we have camps and equipment ready to hand. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"-vigilance of the eye, the heart, and the brain, and that vigilance must be backed up by strength and the knowledge of self-defense.

There are some other representatives of our organization here today, Mr. Chairman. Do you plan to call on them?

Chairman WOODRUM. Yes. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. When was your committee organized, this citizens' committee you represent?

Colonel COOKE. You mean, when was it originally organized or incorporated?

Mr. ALLEN. Incorporated.

Colonel COOKE. It was incorporated in February of this year.
Mr. ALLEN. This year?

Colonel COOKE. Yes; but it goes back considerably before that as a committee, an unincorporated committtee, just a group of citizens. Mr. ALLEN. How many belong to your organization?

Colonel COOKE. Throughout the country?

Mr. ALLEN. Yes.

Colonel COOKE. I am afraid I can't answer that actually, because we haven't made a recent count.

Mr. ALLEN. Do you believe that all nations should have peacetime compulsory training? By that I mean China, India, France, Italythey should all have military preparedness or military training?

Colonel COOKE. Mr. Allen, I am talking, I hope, from the point of view of my country. I do not know or care what others do. I am interested in our country first, and it is a matter of indifference to me, as I say, what the others do, so long as we are set in case they do anything-in case they attack us.

Mr. ALLEN. Have you any nations in mind, when you say that we should guard ourselves or prepare ourselves? Have you any nations in mind to guard against?

Colonel CoOKE. I have no nation or nations in mind, anymore than I did in 1920, when we all hoped for perpetual world peace.

Mr. ALLEN. What was your attitude when they scuttled the Navy back in the early twenties; did you oppose that?

Colonel COOKE. I was a little immature in years, or may I say influence at that time-I kept my Reserve commission up, if that is a good answer, because I believe in preparedness.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you, Colonel.

Mr. BULWINKLE. I would like to ask a question or two, if I may.
Chairman WoODRUM. Mr. Bulwinkle, of North Carolina.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Colonel, you said just now something about not caring what the others wanted, just so we had a large Regular Establishment.

May I have your ideas-suppose that we have this year's conscription, what, in your mind, should be the size of the Regular Establishment of the Army?

Colonel COOKE. Mr. Bulwinkle, I am not in any way equipped to answer that question, because in the first place I don't know what the future commitments of this country are, as far as policing certain parts of the world is concerned, or as far as occupying certain spaces which we may receive; and, in the second place, if I did have any idea, I am not enough of an expert to really answer the question. Mr. BULWINKLE. What about the National Guard; what would you do with it?

Colonel COOKE. The National Guard is what is known as the second line of defense, our first line is the Regular Establishment. The National Guard, unless there is an emergency declared and they are ordered into the Federal service, remain within the domestic borders of this country, at least that has been the law in the past, and I assume it will be in the future.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Well, would you retain the National Guard?
Colonel COOKE. I certainly would.

Mr. BULWINKLE. Well, then, haven't you any idea as to how much of a Regular Army you would retain?

Colonel COOKE. Not the slightest, because, as I say, I don't know the problems.

Mr. BULWINKLE. That is all.

Mr. ALLEN. Did I understand you to say you didn't know how many were members of your organization?

Colonel CoOKE. No; I don't.

Mr. ALLEN. It might be 10 or 4?

Colonel CoOKE. No; it might be 4,000 or 14,000, but it might not be 4 or 10.

The reason is that many of the States keep their membership cards themselves and do not send them on to us, and we don't get a tabulation up to the minute, you might say.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Kearny.

Mr. KEARNY. Colonel, in your thoughts on national preparedness, have you in mind any expansion of the National Guard?

Colonel CoOKE. Well, again, I don't think I am equipped to answer that. As I said earlier, I don't pose as a military expert, and I really don't think I am equipped to answer whether or not there should be more than 18 divisions in this country or not. There are too many factors involved-what units they propose to maintain, whether or not part will be armored, whether or not they should be of this or that class, or whether they are service troops or not, just what they should be.

Mr. KEARNY. By expansion of the National Guard, would that not give more training?

Colonel COOKE. Yes, sir; it would give more people more training; but, after all, the National Guard training consists usually of one evening per week, plus 2 weeks in the summer.

Mr. KEARNY. It could be made better, though.

Colonel COOKE. Of course, it could be, anything could.

Chairman WOODRUM. Mr. Arends.

Mr. ARENDS. Colonel Cooke, does your organization-have you been following a policy of being interested only in this particular question of compulsory military training, or has your organization been active on other matters of National defense, such as, for instance-did your organization take a stand on the "work-or-fight" legislation?

Colonel CooKE. No, sir; it was interested in nothing else except this one subject.

Chairman WOODRUM. Thank you very much, Colonel.

Mrs. Barlow, will you come up, please?

Mrs. Ernesta Barlow is vice president of the Citizens Committee for Military Training of Young Men, Inc., and we are very glad to have you with us, Mrs. Barlow.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ERNESTA BARLOW, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR MILITARY TRAINING OF YOUNG MEN, INC.

Mrs. BARLOW. Mr. Chairman and members, while neither I nor any other woman can presume to speak for the women of America, I do claim that I can speak for a great many of them on the subject of postwar military training.

In my capacity, first as chairman of the Women's National Committee for Military Training of Young Men and now as vice president of the Citizens Committee, I represent here today the women members of our 31 State organizations.

In past months I have been privileged to talk with, or address at meeting, or to learn though the medium of correspondence, the opinion of many women belonging to other organizations.

Our women's national headquarters are in New York at 660 Madison Avenue. We are supported entirely through contributions from private individuals. Our books are open to inspection. Except for a small secretarial staff and a professional adviser on publicity all our workers are, like myself, volunteers.

We have endeavored to bring accurate information on the whole question of peacetime military training to a true cross-section of our American women, largely through their own great national groups. Membership in these women's organizations total some 20,000,000.

I cite this in order to show you the broad representation and immense latent power in these women groups. I also call to your attention at this point the result of the Gallup poll of May 2, which shows 70 percent of the women of the United States to be in favor of peacetime military training; the Roper poll showed 69.9 in favor. We believe the justification for the adoption of this system is that it is essential to the security of our country.

We believe with General Washington that preparation for war is one of the most effectual ways of preserving peace.

Our prayers are for the success of the San Francisco Conference and the principles laid down at Dumbarton Oaks. But we believe, in addition, that behind any world organization of which this country is a member a powerful body of trained civilian reserves will be proof that we have the strength to back our promises of international cooperation for peace.

We need this trained, disciplined body of young men "in order that we may become respectable in the eyes of our friends and formidable to those who would otherwise become our enemies."

We believe we should adopt the system now while we know just what war means. Should we wait and propose its adoption some years from now the world might rightly say, "Whom does the United States fear? Whom does she mistrust?" Now, that could, in our opinion, create serious trouble.

We accept the fact as self-evident that the Atlantic and Pacific, our greatest protection in the past, will not be a protection against the robot bombs of the future. The successful amphibious invasion of this war on every sea has doubly proved the ocean is no longer a defense. The best way to prevent a next time, therefore, is to be strong in cooperation with other peace-loving nations, strong in our

selves.

73951-45-pt. 1-2

One deadly weapon has not been used in this war-gas. Our enemies knew we were prepared to retaliate in kind within the hour. They did not try gas because the Allies were ready. In other words, preparedness worked.

We believe our fighting men must have a voice in the passing of any bill for military training. Evidence of their choice has been collected and expressed in polls taken in all theaters of war by the Army and Navy, and the vote has been 3 and 4 to 1 in favor.

These men have seen with true vision that now, in war, is the moment when men care most for peace; now is the time to speak most surely of the means to keep the peace.

Women have a great stake in preventing war. Every single man who goes to war is some woman's son, brother, father, husband, sweetheart, and this is why the adoption of military training is a woman's business as surely as it is a man's. The method of carrying it out we leave to the experts in the Army and Navy-men who have splendidly demonstrated their ability.

Believing military training to be a necessity on security grounds, as women we cannot overlook the very fine byproducts of such training. It must not be in any way considered a substitute for civilian health and educational programs.

The duty of every citizen is to see those brought to a higher general level throughout the country. But until such time as this comes to pass, the solid year of training in the Army and Navy may well be the highest level of educational opportunity and standard of living offered many of these young men.

As women we have seen the improvement in our men through their experience in our training centers. The regular life, the dicipline, the fine medical care, have all been to the good. Men are given the best vocational training, taught them by the latest and most scientific methods.

Why, the Army alone trains men in about 4,000 specialist categories. Every opportunity for religious service and worship through all creeds will be given. Our young men will learn about America from other Americans. None will have special privilege.

The farm boy and the city boy will learn to understand each other. The son of the industrialist will have for his friend the son of a coal miner. Each will profit. The year of training will be a practical example of democracy instead of a piece of rhetoric.

It is pointed out that our young men will receive more than they give through the year of training now. For that, we are devoutly thankful.

This wartime generation has given prodigally of its life and blood. We believe that peacetime generations of young Americans can only benefit through this 1 year lived in the interest of this country.

We agree that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government owes a portion of his personal services to the defense of it. We do not believe that peace can be had for nothing.

We are sick at heart to read the lists of fine print in every daily paper-dead, wounded, and missing.

We wish to make an end of it.

We believe we must pay for peace in time and energy. Lip service is not enough. It is time to try something we have never tried in our